TY - JOUR
T1 - Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions on survival time in patients with cancer
AU - Oh, P. J.
AU - Shin, S. R.
AU - Ahn, H. S.
AU - Kim, H. J.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Sahmyook University Research Fund [grant number RI 2014038].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Taylor & Francis.
PY - 2016/4/2
Y1 - 2016/4/2
N2 - Objective: This study was to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival in adult patients with cancer. Method: MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Korean electronic databases (September 2014) were searched. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias for randomized studies. The RevMan 5.3 program of the Cochrane library was used for data analysis. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2940 participants. Overall, psychosocial interventions was not associated with better survival (HR = .83, 95% CI [.68, 1.10], p = .06, I2 = 64%). In subgroup analysis, based on six trials with 1448 subjects, psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients with non-metastatic at intervention implementation resulted in a 41% reduction in the risk of dying of cancer (HR = .59, 95% CI [.49,.71], p < .001, I2 = 0%). For psychoeducational intervention, significant survival benefit were found when health staff delivered the intervention and at a follow-up time of more than 10 years. Conclusions: Use of psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients at early stage appeared to have beneficial effects on survival, preferably for delivering of health staff. However, conduct of further psychosocial studies with adequate power will lead to better understanding of the effects of treatments on survival outcome.
AB - Objective: This study was to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival in adult patients with cancer. Method: MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Korean electronic databases (September 2014) were searched. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias for randomized studies. The RevMan 5.3 program of the Cochrane library was used for data analysis. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2940 participants. Overall, psychosocial interventions was not associated with better survival (HR = .83, 95% CI [.68, 1.10], p = .06, I2 = 64%). In subgroup analysis, based on six trials with 1448 subjects, psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients with non-metastatic at intervention implementation resulted in a 41% reduction in the risk of dying of cancer (HR = .59, 95% CI [.49,.71], p < .001, I2 = 0%). For psychoeducational intervention, significant survival benefit were found when health staff delivered the intervention and at a follow-up time of more than 10 years. Conclusions: Use of psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients at early stage appeared to have beneficial effects on survival, preferably for delivering of health staff. However, conduct of further psychosocial studies with adequate power will lead to better understanding of the effects of treatments on survival outcome.
KW - intervention studies
KW - meta-analysis
KW - neoplasm
KW - survival
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959248846&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/08870446.2015.1111370
DO - 10.1080/08870446.2015.1111370
M3 - Article
C2 - 26518363
AN - SCOPUS:84959248846
VL - 31
SP - 396
EP - 419
JO - Psychology and Health
JF - Psychology and Health
SN - 0887-0446
IS - 4
ER -
